The US Supreme Court threw employers a curveball in 2023 (Groff v. Dejoy,600 U.S. 447 (2023)) when it held that an employer must show a substantial cost to its business in order to deny an employee’s religious accommodation request. The standard for decades had been whether a religious accommodation created a burden for the employer or fellow employees. With respect to absences, an employer simply had to seek volunteers, and could stop short of forcing employees to cover for an employee’s religious-related absence. 

Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit joined five other circuits in ruling that workers have a minimal burden in demonstrating a basis for their religious beliefs. In other words, employers should initially take an employee’s word for it that they subscribe to a particular religion, or that the belief qualifies as a religion. 

Costco won a case several years ago when the federal court held that Costco had the right to expect its employees to present a reasonable appearance to its customers, and an employee’s refusal to engage in the accommodation process with Costco relative to her facial piercings justified her termination. The employee had claimed that she was a member of The Church of Body Modification. Instead of dismissing the employee’s religion as baseless, Costco attempted to work with the employee and that ultimately allowed them to prevail. 

In short, employers now risk costly litigation if they make a knee-jerk reaction in questioning or dismissing the sincerity or validity of an employee’s alleged religious belief. Employers should seek advice any time an employee uses their religion as a basis for missing work, refusing to perform certain duties, and/or refusing to comply with dress or grooming policies. This recent ruling demonstrates the dangers of employers basing their responses to religious accommodation requests on an evaluation of the sincerity of the employee’s expressed beliefs.